___________________________​Defense experts back IDF’s 2014 Gaza campaign, claim critics are invoking wrong set of laws'Human rights law was not the right set of laws to govern this; the laws of armed conflict are'Report by international High Level Military Group blasts UN commission, says Israel set a standard no other army could match

BY JUDAH ARI GROSS Times of Israel December 13, 2015http://www.timesofisrael.com/international-defense-experts-back-idfs-2014-gaza-campaign/?utm_source=The+Times+of+Israel+Daily+Edition&utm_campaign=d3db7ce77e-2015_12_13&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_adb46cec92-d3db7ce77e-54421417

Why terrorists have us all under the gun

"appeasement is official policy"

By Miranda Devine,The Sunday Telegraph, Nov 22, 2015

THE Australian Army is removing a century-old motto on the hat of army chaplains, because it might offend Muslims.

“In this sign, conquer” is the motto written around a cross on a badge on the chaplains’ hats. The words are to be deleted, reportedly to better reflect the “diversity” of the army.

The army may as well delete the cross too, which is presumably even more offensive to the professional offence-takers of the Islamic community.

The move follows the appointment of an imam to advise the army for $717 a day, Sheik Mohamadu Nawas ­Saleem, who previously has suggested sharia law be introduced into Australian divorce courts.

So now we know it is official government policy to appease Islamists.

But if anyone objects, you can bet that they will be accused of “Islamophobia”.

And Islamophobia is to blame for terrorism, as the Grand Mufti told us after the Paris attacks.

Anyone who questions the ideology which justifies murder in the name of Islam is “dividing” the community and playing into the hands of IS.

Don’t question the spread of a lethal totalitarian ideology ­because that would be persecuting Muslims.

Don’t point out that terrorists from Paris to Parramatta who yell “Allahu Akbar” commit murder in the name of Islam. Don’t mention that more Muslims around the world are killed by other Muslims than by any “crusader” army because you’ll wreck the victim narrative.

This is the vice we are trapped in — between Western political correctness and Islamist propaganda.

This is why our progressive new Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull found it so hard to respond forthrightly to the Paris terrorist attacks. His first response was to say “freedom stands up for itself”, when freedom only stands because our soldiers fought for it, as part of the army whose heritage is being sold out by politically correct appeasers.

The PM also last week committed Australia to the Obama agenda in the Middle East, ­despite the fact it has been a tragic failure.

But the Obama agenda has been for America to project weakness, and leave a vacuum filled by Russia, Iran and Islamist terrorists.

Turnbull claimed the way to deal with the terrorists was by “political settlement”, “compromise” and some sort of “power sharing deal”, which could include Sunni elements linked to IS, but that was up to the Syrians.

No wonder Turnbull is more popular with Islamic fundamentalists and their left-wing apologists than his straight-talking predecessor.

He couldn’t even bring himself to criticise the Grand Mufti, Ibrahim Abu Mohammed, who blamed “causative factors” including racism, Islamophobia and foreign policy for IS attacks on Paris.

But when the Mufti issued a “clarification” which still did not explicitly repudiate IS’s religious violence, the PM commended him.

We know Turnbull believes in the glass half full theory of life but that’s ridiculous.

The Mufti’s clarification, condemning “all forms of terrorist violence”, depended on how you define “terrorism” and “innocent lives”.

If anything, the clarification made things worse.

None of this is a surprise to theologian Dr Mark Durie, author of The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude And Freedom.

No wonder Turnbull is more popular with Islamic fundamentalists and their left-wing apologists than his straight-talking predecessor.

The Anglican pastor warns that Australia is naive and unprepared to face the problem of Islamist extremism, because it misunderstands Islam.

Even counter-terrorism experts have “bought into a theologically illiterate view that all religions are the same and that Islam’s problems today are just a twisted ­distortion”.

“And I think if they have that view they’ll never understand what they’re trying to deal with and they will be ineffective to a significant degree because of that.”

He says Australian Muslims he knows from the Middle East “are absolutely appalled by our naivety and inability to engage with the theological issues that are driving these movements”.

Durie also points to the fact that the Christian West is ­ignoring the plight of persecuted Christians in Iraq and Syria, and won’t even offer Christian refugees priority in their humanitarian intakes.“Somehow it’s a horrible thought crime.”

When Tony Abbott announced an extra intake of 12,000 Syrian refugees would comprise Christians and other persecuted minorities he was labelled a “bigot” by Islamic leaders.

The UN refugee agency then demanded that religion play no part in refugee selection. The head of the government’s Syrian Refugee Resettlement Task Force insisted the intake would comprise a “range of religions” and the first family were Sunni Muslims.

Australia’s Christian leaders have expressed concerns that the government is breaking its promise and that most of the intake will be Muslims.

Privately the government says it will give preference to “persecuted minorities”.

But it doesn’t want to antagonise the UN by saying so publicly. Again, appeasement is official policy.

True bipartisanship – oppose the [Iran] deal

By J.B. Pritzker The Hill August 20, 2015

Ending Iran’s nuclear threat and bringing it into the international community of law-abiding nations is one of the most pressing U.S. foreign policy objectives. And so I was relieved and grateful to watch President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry work tirelessly over the past several months to achieve a diplomatic agreement with Iran over its nuclear program.

This work was made all the more complicated by the need to coordinate the widely disparate interests among the P5+1 countries of Russia, China, France, Germany and the United Kingdom. Anyone who has been in business negotiations with multiple parties, as I have, knows how difficult it can be to find common ground with so many strong voices in the room. The challenge in multi-lateral negotiations is not to lose sight of one’s over-arching goal in the midst of the cacophony of opinions at the bargaining table. For the U.S., which Iran has dubbed its No. 1 enemy in the world, our objectives were to reduce the threat to the homeland, to American interests abroad and to our allies in the region.

Regrettably, the Iran deal fails to meet these goals and raises the prospects for war. I cannot support a deal that reduces all our leverage upfront, giving Iran billions of dollars in sanctions relief, in return for permitting it to maintain its advanced nuclear program and the infrastructure of a threshold nuclear state.

For decades, Iran has covertly worked to develop a nuclear weapons program and has repeatedly violated its international obligations. The United States cannot afford to give Iran the benefit of the doubt; our national security will depend on it.

In addition to gaining access to up to $100 billion worth of frozen assets and the lifting of sanctions at the beginning of this agreement, the deal lifts the arms embargo in only five years and critical ballistic missile restrictions after only eight years. This regime has no respect for human rights or international norms and is the world’s most robust supporter of terrorists bent on destroying Western countries.

A financially bolstered hard-line Iranian regime will result in increased terrorism abroad and even more repression at home. Given Iran’s atrocious human rights record, we risk compromising our progressive values if we eliminate sanctions and prop up this reactionary regime.

I am a lifelong Democrat. Like a rapidly expanding list of Democrats across the country, I oppose this deal. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) encapsulated our thoughts most eloquently when he recently came out against the agreement: “better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be.”

The president and Secretary Kerry disagree with us. We are all Democrats. Apparently, this is not a partisan issue.

I have been disappointed to read the president’s remarks tainting the debate by challenging the motivations of deal opponents like myself. There is room in our party to have opposing views of the Iran deal. Democrats on both sides can legitimately reach alternate conclusions based on different interpretations of the facts without questioning their loyalties or their intentions.

Instead, I question the motives of Iran. Just days after the agreement was announced, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei announced that his “government’s policies toward the arrogant government of the United States will not be changed at all” as his audience responded with exuberant shouts of “death to America.”

Some will argue that if this agreement works, it will buy us 15 years and prevent the need for military engagement. But they ignore that the agreement allows Iran to continue research and development on advanced centrifuges, and therefore it will be only days away from breaking out to a nuclear weapon after 15 years. Iran will have done this within the confines of the agreement, so the U.S. and the international community will have legitimized Iran becoming a nuclear threshold state, not prevented it.

This will leave the U.S. with two bad options: accept a nuclear Iran, or take military action. By legitimizing Iran’s nuclear program, removing the pressure of economic sanctions and allowing it to obtain conventional weapons and ballistic missiles, this agreement makes the prospect for war more likely, not less.

Rejecting this deal will not end the diplomatic process. In fact, accepting this deal would likely cut off the diplomatic process for at least 15 years and would preclude us from negotiating a better deal. For the sake of our values and our security, Congress should reject this deal, leave the sanctions in place, and support efforts to negotiate a better agreement.

Pritzker is co-founder and managing partner of Pritzker Group, a Chicago-based private investment firm, and served as national co-chair of Hillary Clinton for President in 2008.

Hezbollah turns millions into human shields, warns Israel

Jamie Walker, The Australian, JULY 11, 2015

Israel has warned that up to three million civilians are “human shields’’ for Islamist ­extremists entrenched on its borders, raising the stakes as ­tension escalates over the fate of two Israeli nationals missing in the Palestinian enclave of Gaza.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the militant group Hamas would be held ­responsible for the safety of ­Ethiopian-born Avraham Mengistu, 28, and an unnamed Arab-Israeli man after they ­separately crossed into Gaza and were evidently detained.

“I expect the international community, which expresses its concerns over the humanitarian situation in Gaza, to issue a clear call for these citizens to be ­released and to see to their ­return,’’ Mr Netanyahu said.

The crisis erupted on the ­anniversary of the devastating war that killed up to 2300 people and destroyed tens of thousands of homes which are yet to be ­rebuilt in Gaza, amid biting ­recriminations over whether the international community has honoured financial pledges to help or whether those funds have been embezzled or funnelled to Hamas’s military wing.....

Read full article:http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/hezbollah-turns-millions-into-human-shields-warns-israel/story-e6frg6so-1227437390439

On the other hand Everyone can agree the two-state solution is fine but doesn't that mean the killing will have to stop?byRowan Dean AFR 1 May 2015 Dear Mr Fooley (or may I call you Luke?)Just got back from my Labor parliamentary excursion, dividing my time equally between Israel and the Palestinian territories, as you requested. What a trip! My feet hardly touched the ground!Monday: Arrived at Lod Airport, after circling around to avoid being blasted out of the sky by IS, Hamas, Hezbollah, and a bunch of other peace-loving friends of the Palestinian People's Struggle to Wipe The Perfidious Jew Off The Face Off The Earth Praise Be To Allah. Grabbed some duty-frees and headed into downtown Tel Aviv. Looks just like Surfers Paradise meets Surry Hills. Cool hipsters and hot chicks everywhere. Grabbed a quick beer and a burger, bought some fab new apps and software and …Oops! Time to go to Palestine. Drove into downtown Ramallah. Looks like Mogadishu meets the Mudgee tip. Litter everywhere. Armed guards and machine gun-wielding Mafiosi types wandering around everywhere, too. Try to grab a quick beer, but, er …Oops! Gotta get back to Israel. Meet some scientists who invented the smartphone industry, or all the cool stuff like Viber and Waze. Plus they invented all this bionic stuff that helps paraplegics and things that stop crib deaths and things that cure …Yikes! Gotta get back to Palestine. Meet a bunch of dudes who invented the grievance industry. They explain how Israel has been oppressing them for decades. I ask them in what way exactly and they explain, "by existing".Cripes! Back to Jerusalem. Beautiful old city. Visit the Wailing Wall, which is all that's left of the original 3000-year-old Jewish temple where the dudes in black hats go and nod. Anyone can go but you gotta be careful coz Arab kids like to chuck rocks at you when you're praying.TEMPLE MOUNTNext. Head up to the Palestinian bit that sits on top of the Temple Mount, only you're not allowed to call it that up here, you have to call it the al-Aqsa Mosque. Lucky I'm not Jewish, coz Jews aren't allowed in. (Er, isn't that racist?)OK, OK, I'm coming! Back on the bus and a quick trip to Sderot, this little town in the desert. Crazy architecture! Every house has a huge concrete bomb shelter in the front garden, every bus-stop doubles as a bomb shelter, even the kiddies playground doubles as a bomb shelter. Cool! I ask people how come they stay here when they're only ever 15 seconds from being annihilated and they say that it's their home and they love it. Fair enough.There's a house on the hill that looks really nice, even though it's been hit by rockets and re-repaired a dozen times. Cool.Off to Gaza! Wow. Crazy architecture. Every hospital doubles as a rocket-launching pad, every kiddies playground doubles as a missile silo! Far out! I ask people how come they stay here and they explain that Hamas will shoot them if they try to leave. Fair point.There's a suburb on the hill that looks really nice but you're only allowed to live in it if you've had your kids blow themselves up killing Jews.Quick smart! Back to Israel. Go to the funky Knesset Parliament building. Time to discuss politics! Oh boy! None of them agree on anything! They all argue like crazy about the best way to achieve peace (that's democracy, I guess) and how to make the two-state solution work. Everyone agrees a Palestinian state is fine, as long as they stop trying to kill Jews. Fair point.INCREDIBLY OPULENT Back to Ramallah. Weirdly, in the middle of all the rubbish and filth there are these incredibly opulent buildings that look like massive McMansions on steroids! Turns out they all belong to the Palestinian Authority dudes and were built with all that United Nations billions! How cool is that! We go to this marble-clad ballroom in this building that looks like a Gold Coast hotel. Time to discuss politics! Oh boy. The dude explains that the only way there can be peace is if there are two states: one called Palestine, which has no Jews in it, and the other called Whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-it, as long as there are "only a handful" of Jews in it. Huh? Sounds, um, a tad unreasonable.Back to the hotel. Chill out in front of the telly and watch a doco about how Israel is inventing stuff to tackle climate change. Really interesting. (Why do we want to boycott that?)Yikes! Luke said we gotta give equal time to Palestinian TV too! Flick on to a kids program. Really interesting. The presenter is dressed up as a clown and is using a rag doll to demonstrate how to, er, murder Jews. (Shouldn't we be boycotting that?)Whew! Can't wait for tomorrow.

2. What ISIS really wantsThe message conveyed in the Der Spiegel article (above) is somewhat different to the Graeme Wood article below in The Atlantic (March 2015) where he says ISIL are fundamentalist jihadis believing in the original tenants of islam from the 7th century. "The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it."....Read:>http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

﻿A Christmas Wish 2014﻿

Israel's UN Ambassador Ron Prosor addresses UNGA 24 Nov 2014

Christian Arabs attacked in Denmark by Muslims

Full text of Netanyahu’s speech at the UN General Assembly 29 September 2014

Israeli prime minister cautions against rise of militant Islam in every form, says ready to make ‘historic compromise’ for peace

Times of Israel September 29, 2014

Thank you, Mr. President,

Distinguished delegates,I come here from Jerusalem to speak on behalf of my people, the people of Israel. I’ve come here to speak about the dangers we face and about the opportunities we see. I’ve come here to expose the brazen lies spoken from this very podium against my country and against the brave soldiers who defend it.

Ladies and Gentlemen,The people of Israel pray for peace.But our hopes and the world’s hope for peace are in danger. Because everywhere we look, militant Islam is on the march.It’s not militants. It’s not Islam. It’s militant Islam.Typically, its first victims are other Muslims, but it spares no one. Christians, Jews, Yazidis, Kurds — no creed, no faith, no ethnic group is beyond its sights. And it’s rapidly spreading in every part of the world...........Continue reading full speech:>>http://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-of-netanyahus-speech-at-the-un-general-assembly/

Anne Bayefsky speaks at the UN about UN antisemitism, Sept. 8, 2014

What Happens to Palestinian Moderates

What Happens to Palestinian Moderates?Shot in the streets with a pistol to the head after midday prayers."The Palestinians will never have peace as long as they keep murdering anyone who wants it."

Wall St Journal Aug. 24, 2014

One of the myths about the Middle East is that there would be peace if only Israel courted Palestinian moderates. This might be possible if any Palestinian who harbored such a thought wasn't summarily executed.On Friday Hamas shot 18 fellow Palestinians on suspicion that they had collaborated with Israel. Here's how a Journal dispatch put it:

A Hamas militant grabs a Palestinian suspected of collaborating with Israel, before being executed in Gaza City August 22, 2014. Reuters

"In one instance, about 20 militants dressed in black and with their faces covered brought six of the condemned men, their heads covered with cloth bags, to an alley near the Great Omari Mosque in Gaza City after midday prayers, witnesses said. A militant shot the men in the head one at a time with a pistol, after which he sprayed them with automatic rifle fire, the witnesses said. The bodies were loaded into government ambulances and taken away."That followed three previous executions carried out a day earlier. The killings followed Israel's attack that killed three senior commanders of Hamas's military wing after Hamas broke another ceasefire by shooting more rockets into Israel. It's possible that one or more of those executed did provide information to Israel, but you can be sure that none of them received anything more than a summary trial after a brutal interrogation that would have made any man confess to something.In any case Hamas considers the public demonstration to be more important than guilt or innocence. The public killings are intended to show anyone who dissents that they will suffer the same fate.The practice goes back to the days of the British mandate when the mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini killed Palestinians open to a Jewish presence. During the anti-Israel uprisings in the 1980s, Yasser Arafat's Fatah faction that still rules the West Bank murdered some 800 Palestinians for alleged collaboration. The Palestinians will never have peace as long as they keep murdering anyone who wants it.

Palestine Makes You Dumb

To argue the Palestinian side, in the Gaza war, is to make the case for barbarism.By Bret Stephens July 28, 2014 THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Of all the inane things that have been said about the war between Israel and Hamas, surely one dishonorable mention belongs to comments made over the weekend by Benjamin J. Rhodes, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.

Interviewed by CNN's Candy Crowley, Mr. Rhodes offered the now-standard administration line that Israel has a right to defend itself but needs to do more to avoid civilian casualties. Ms. Crowley interjected that, according to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Jewish state was already doing everything it could to avoid such casualties.

"I think you can always do more," Mr. Rhodes replied. "The U.S. military does that in Afghanistan." How inapt is this comparison? ... Read the full article here>>

Why I support Israelby Pat Condell

A tip for the UN

By JPOST EDITORIAL 24 July 2014

If the UN truly wishes to play a constructive role in ending the bloodshed, it should be a part of an international effort to bring about the gradual demilitarization of Gaza.

Surrounded and supported by such moral luminaries as China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone and the United Arab Emirates, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay took action – to defend Hamas.

Concerned that Israel had committed war crimes before and during Operation Protective Edge, Pillay called at an emergency session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva to establish an international committee of inquiry, the goal being to gather as much incriminatory evidence against Israel as possible.

We would have thought that by now the obvious need not be reiterated. Even South African judge Richard Goldstone, principal author of the infamous UN Goldstone Report, came to understand – albeit belatedly – the reality of warfare in Gaza and retracted statements he made blaming Israel for supposedly targeting civilians during Operation Cast Lead in 2009.... Read the full article﻿here﻿>>

*Note: The most current up-to-date articles are emailed free, usually weekly, via our av4i Bulletin, to subscribers who register with us.

______________________________________​The new security politics: ASIO’s Lewis on the line

ASIO's status as an apolitical agency is a legacy too valuable to be lostEDITORIAL THE AUSTRALIAN DECEMBER 18, 2015

ASIO director-general Duncan Lewis has phoned Coalition politicians and urged them to tone down their contributions to the debate about Islam and terror. That is a debate in which Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott are at odds. The effect of the Lewis intervention is to politicise our domestic security agency. It would be acceptable for Mr Turnbull or his office to make phone calls such as these. But it is inappropriate for Mr Lewis to enter the fray, regardless of whether it was his own initiative (which seems unlikely) or a course of action ultimately endorsed by the Prime Minister. It is believed, at the very least, Mr Turnbull’s office was involved in arranging for the Lewis phone calls to take place. Whatever the case, Mr Lewis should have exercised independent judgment and headed off a risk to the credibility of his agency.

Saudi women vote for first time but still can’t drive homeDespite vote, however, there’s a widely held sentiment among many Saudis that women do not belong in public life.AP/ The Australian 14 Dec, 2104

At one point, a counter-racism protester dressed in a niqab alighted from a car which police alleged had been speeding. An officer asked the woman for the names of the other people in the car. The woman’s friend filmed the encounter and put it up on Facebook, as an example of police harassment.

But what the video actually shows is an unfailingly polite police officer trying to do his job while the woman harangues him.

“If you are protecting the civilians of our country, you should be on our side,” she told him.

“That’s got nothing to do with it,” he said. “I’m doing my job.”

“You can’t interrogate me,” she replied.

“I’m not interrogating you. I’m asking you questions.”

“And my morals as a Muslim, OK, is to not [give] stupid information for what reason, whatever you think.”

“I’m just asking you politely.”

“I’m sorry, I don’t agree with you … This is how you protect by interrogating the Muslims. That’s shameful. I’m sorry that’s very shameful.”

The video ends with the policeman walking away, presumably never to receive the information he sought.

Counter-racism protesters, No Room for Racism, face off against Reclaim Australia.

This scenario is a small version of a troubling aspect of Islam that is repeated every day in Australia in various ways. Rather than submitting to civil authority, this woman believed she was exempt, because of her “morals as a Muslim”.

She seemed possessed by a sense of grievance and entitlement, based on her religion, which led her to believe that she was not governed by the rules which allow our society to function. If everyone were to ignore police requests we would descend into anarchy. Yet the police were powerless in the face of her defiance.

For trying to do his job the police officer was accused of Islamophobic harassment on Facebook, further adding to the victim narrative pushed by leftist media and Muslim activists. Similarly, if everyone were to ignore the commands of judges in courts, our justice system would fall apart.

But when Milad bin Ahmad-Shah al-Ahmadzai refused to stand for any judge because he obeys no authority other than Islam, he got away with the disrespect for over a year.

It was only after public outcry that Attorney General Gabrielle Upton this week grudgingly asked the Solicitor-General to consider contempt charges.

Al-Ahmadzai faces charges including the attempted murder of a man outside a gay sex club in Rydalmere. His lawyer Arjun Chhabra told the court his client held a “philosophical and theological belief … that one isn’t at the behest of any authority other than that of Islam.”

Making an exception for this man, and others who have refused to stand, including terrorist leader Abdul Nacer Benbrika, erodes the court’s authority, and emboldens other acts of defiance.

It sanctions Muslim exceptionalism and confirms claims by Islamists that Western societies like ours are weak.

To give in to small acts of defiance is to legitimise the political ideology of Islamism which ultimately seeks violently to impose a world wide caliphate under Sharia Law.

A contemptuous attitude to our society’s rules and laws is the first step to radicalisation and must be understood, not just as a person being religious, but a person substituting a separate law and system of beliefs under Islam which is incompatible with our own.

It does not mean that the person is violent but just that he holds a literal interpretation of the Koran to justify a contempt for our “infidel” society. This is the fertile ground in which violent radicalism sprouts.

The ideology of apartness and victimhood is at the heart of Islamic teachings, and explains why the Australian Grand Mufti’s language was so jarring in his statement issued after the latest Paris terrorist attacks.

Regardless of his expressions of solidarity with the victims of the “heinous” acts, effectively he justified those acts by listing five “causative factors”: “racism, Islamophobia, curtailing freedoms through securitisation, duplicitous foreign policies and military intervention”.

This same grievance-fuelled worldview is used to justify violence by Islamist radicals.

No matter how Western leaders try to pretend otherwise by using euphemisms like “Daesh”, Islamic State’s blueprint is the Koran....

Paris attacks: Ingrained culture of complaint in Muslim community

After last week’s police raids in Saint-Denis, just outside Paris, and in the Brussels district of Molenbeek, it is only natural for Australians to wonder whether it could happen here.

Yes, Saint-Denis and Molenbeek have very high levels of migrant concentration; but those levels are only slightly greater than Sydney’s Lakemba, Auburn and Wiley Park, or Melbourne’s Dandenong South, Dallas and Meadow Heights.

Indeed, the degree to which foreign-born Australians are geographically concentrated is high by international standards. Berlin, for example, is the city with the greatest share of Germany’s Turkish residents; but only 7 per cent of the country’s Turkish population lives there. In contrast, just two suburbs — Auburn in Sydney and Hume in Melbourne — are home to nearly a third of Australia’s Turks.

With similarly high levels of geographical concentration for Lebanese Muslims, it is unsurprising that Islamists have found it relatively easy to melt into the background, while reaching out to their target population.

And as radicalisation into jihad overwhelmingly occurs through direct personal relationships, it is also unsurprising that a few suburbs have generated the bulk of Australia’s disproportionate contribution to the foreign fighters in Syria and almost all our cases of homegrown terrorism.

To say that is not to suggest that areas such as Lakemba or Dandenong South suffer social problems anywhere near as acute as those of Saint-Denis or Molenbeek.

After all, in the highly regulated labour markets of France and Belgium, where restrictions on the right to hire and fire create steep barriers between insiders and outsiders, nearly a quarter of all young second generation migrants are unemployed.

Moreover, 23 per cent of migrant households in France, and 27 per cent of migrant households in Belgium, are in the lowest income decile, while 40 per cent of Belgian migrant families and just over 30 per cent of French have incomes which are less than 60 per cent of the national median.

And the disadvantage also extends to education, with PISA reading scores for second generation migrants in Belgium and France that are significantly below those for non-migrant children, even taking socio-economic status into account.

The Australian results are starkly different. Unemployment rates are lower for young second generation migrants than they are for the native-born offspring of native-born parents. As for incomes, migrant families are slightly over-represented in the lowest income decile, but the gap is small and often transient.

And second generation migrants in Australia not only perform better on the PISA assessment than their native counterparts, but do so to an increasing extent, with the scores of 15-year-old locals falling by 19 points since 2003, while those of the children of the foreign-born have risen by 12 points.

Of course, those results mask significant differences between Australia’s ethnic communities and between humanitarian and skilled migrants. For example, unemployment rates among Muslims are some 4 percentage points higher than the national average, while close to 50 per cent of working age Muslims are not in the labour force, compared to around a third of the working age population as a whole. Even so, on virtually all indicators, our outcomes, compared to Europe’s, are stellar.

But it would be foolish to draw much comfort from that fact. There is, in effect, no reason to believe social disadvantage explains terrorism or that its absence prevents it....

Read full article:http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/paris-attacks-ingrained-culture-of-complaint-in-muslim-community/story-fn7078da-1227618752875

The latest Iran revelation is utterly humiliating

“The Obama administration has a lot of explaining to do. Why haven’t these secret side agreements been provided to Congress ? ...'... Iran threatened an IAEA official if he revealed the nature of the side deals.JENNIFER RUBIN The Washington Post AUGUST 19, 2015

Iran, in an unusual arrangement, will be allowed to use its own experts to inspect a site it allegedly used to develop nuclear arms under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.

It surely will. “This establishes the exact precedent that Iran always sought and repeatedly claimed: IAEA weapons inspectors will never get physical access into any military sites,” says sanctions expert Mark Dubowitz in an email. “That the Obama administration agreed to Iranian self-inspections tells you everything you need to know about how far it caved on the essential elements of a verifiable and enforceable nuclear agreement.”

The inspection regime and dispute resolution system was already riddled with loopholes that Iran will exploit. But with this there is not even the pretense that there is a viable inspection process. With self-inspection comes the open door for Iran to cheat with impunity. The AP report continues:

The Parchin deal is a separate, side agreement worked out between the IAEA and Iran. The United States and the five other world powers that signed the Iran nuclear deal were not party to this agreement but were briefed on it by the IAEA and endorsed it as part of the larger package. Without divulging its contents, the Obama administration has described the document as nothing more than a routine technical arrangement between Iran and the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency on the particulars of inspecting the site.....Read full article:>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/08/19/the-latest-iran-revelation-is-utterly-humiliating/

Barack Obama’s road to disaster with a rotten Iran nuclear deal

Greg Sheridan, Foreign Editor, THE AUSTRALIAN 8 Aug, 2015

The presidency of Barack Obama has reached a stage of decomposition akin to that of a spent uranium shell lingering dangerously on an abandoned battlefield.

Obama’s presidency is now a deformed caricature of its former self — vaguely recognisable, intensely unattractive, dangerous to be near.

I reach this melancholy and unattractive conclusion following Obama’s truly bizarre argument that the only alternative to his capitulation to Iran is war. This is a statement almost clinically deranged.

It combines everything that is bad in the Obama presidency: rhetorical overreach, emotional blackmail, supreme arrogance and an almost demented failure to confront reality.

Obama’s deal with Iran is the worst possible deal. It will in the long run likely make the Middle East far more unstable. More important, it makes the prospect of the spread of nuclear weapons throughout the Middle East much likelier.

As we commemorate the 70th anniversary of the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we can pause to remark how well the world has done to prevent a second hostile use of the unimaginable devastation of nuclear weapons.

This is a triumph of our species, in some respects a rare triumph. But Obama’s Iran deal, and the success of Islamic State and similar groups throughout the Middle East and North Africa, and now the disastrous new actions of Turkey, radically increase the chances that we won’t be able to maintain this 70-year success.

There is no need to recount again all the ways in which Obama’s Iran deal achieves exact­ly the opposite of what it claims.

At the most basic level, one of the main ways the world has prevented the spread of nuclear weapons has been to prevent the spread of the most sensitive elements of nuclear technology.

Thus, most nations that have peaceful nuclear energy programs do not enrich their own uranium. They buy enriched uranium to use as nuclear fuel.

The Obama agreement with Iran grants complete legitimacy to Iran’s possession of every part of the nuclear cycle, including advanced uranium enrichment.

There is not a serious strategic analyst in the world who does not believe that Iran’s nuclear program is bent towards ultimate nuclear weapons capability.

The enforcement and inspections regime is so weak — 24 days’ formal notice and advance negotiation of access for any inspection of a non-declared nuclear site — that the ability of Iran to cheat on this deal over time is spectacular.

Obama was so desperate to get this deal that he even threw in non-nuclear concessions tools such as the progressive lifting of conventional weapons and missile technology embargoes on Iran.

The result of the deal is that a vastly stronger Iran will in time certainly have nuclear weapons, sophisticated air defences to protect them and long-range missiles to deliver them.

So, was the only alternative to this turning of all four cheeks submission really war?

Of course not.

Continued and intensified sanctions, coupled with comprehensive arms and technology ­embargoes, offered the best chance of seriously delaying and perhaps preventing a nuclear-armed Iran.

But this would have yielded no moment of fatuous and fantastic triumph, such as Obama is awarding himself now.

It is in this that Obama reveals himself as the Platonic ideal of the postmodern political leader. It is the transient moment of media triumph that counts, not the substantial reality.

Postmodern political leaders tend to keep well away from substantial reality because it’s so messy and intractable.

It is worth contrasting the US President’s behaviour with that of another leader, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu has been criticised as a fearmonger over Iran, and for implicitly threatening a military strike on Iran without ever following through.

The fearmongering charge is ridiculous. Iran keeps threatening to wipe his nation off the map. But the implicit threat of military action had a serious strategic purpose, which, before Obama’s surrender, it had in large measure achieved.

I never thought it very likely Israel would strike Iran. There were three considerations that led to this conclusion.

One, if Israel had a good shot at Iran’s nuclear program, it would have taken it long ago. The technical challenge of such an attack is enormous.

Two, when Israel is really going to do something like this it doesn’t talk about it in advance, as the earlier attacks on Syrian and Iraqi nuclear reactors demonstrate.

And three, the political and military costs of such a strike for Israel would be enormous.

But by convincing the Americans, and especially the Europeans, that he might conduct such a strike, Netanyahu forced them to take the Iranian nuclear threat ­seriously.

Democratic politicians are always inclined to put off the important to deal with the urgent. Netanyahu made the Iranian situation urgent.

So Obama has all but guaranteed a nuclear-armed Iran down the track, which must surely lead Iran’s bitter enemy Saudi Arabia and long-term rivals Egypt and Turkey eventually to acquire nuclear weapons as well......

Read full article:http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/barack-obamas-road-to-disaster-with-a-rotten-iran-nuclear-deal/story-e6frg6z6-1227474674365

*Matti Friedman interview on Nothing Left

Matti Friedman speaking at the BICOM annual dinner, 26 January 2015.

To coincide with an interview on J-Air's Nothing Left with journalist Matti Friedman (on 14 July 2015), below are links to two of his most important recent articles:

*The ideological roots of media bias against Israelby Matti Friedman Fathom Journal WINTER / 2015"The facts don’t matter: We are in the world of symbols. In this world, Israel has become a symbol of what is wrong – not Hamas, not Hezbollah, not Great Britain, not America, not Russia."

WATCH: CROSSING THE LINE 2The Rise Of Anti-Israel Activity And Anti-Semitism On Campus (Posted 26 May 2015)

By Itai Anghel ABC news April 27, 2015A MUST-SEE ABC-TV Program:

NO FREE STEPS TO HEAVEN, reported by the renowned Israeli TV Journalist, Itai Anghel, and presented by Kerry O'Brien, it went to air on Monday 27th April at 8.30pm on ABC. It can also be seen on ABC iview and at abc.net.au/4corners

If anyone ever doubts the ability of Sharia law ideology to inspire brutal violence and terrorism, this will change your mind!The bravery and will to live expressed by the more secular Kurds, and particularly the female Kurdish fighters, is an eye-opener. http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2015/04/27/4222860.htm

IMAGINE if a religious leader stood on the streets of Sydney and openly called for the murder of people of another faith. It happened recently, and barely a word of condemnation was heard.

Yet such was the unrestrained venom and hatred that spewed from the speaker it is not ­beyond the realms of possibility it has ­inspired another Mohammad Merah, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Mehdi Nemmouche, Said Kou­achi, Amedy Coulibaly or Omar El-Hussein — the terrorists who murdered innocents in Toulouse, Boston, Brussels, Paris and Cop­en­hagen. Or another Man Haron Monis, the Sydney siege gunman

What was the issue which should have created a stir, but caused just a blip in the media and public consciousness?

A rally was held in Lakemba on July 25 last year. It featured the spiritual head of Hizb ut-Tahrir, the nasty extremist group that unashamedly advocates sharia and the destruction of our democratic way of life.

Interpretations of sharia vary, but can include denying women the right to vote, drive or go ­outdoors without a male chap­eron, outlawing homosexuality, the death penalty for theft, inequality between believers and nonbelievers.

In a chilling harangue dripping with vitriol, Ismail al-Wahwah unleashed his bile on Jews everywhere, accusing them of corruption, describing them as “hidden evil”, warning that the world would rid itself of them.

“The entire world suffers from the children of Israel today and complains about them,” he fulminated. “Who will set the world free from the children of Israel so that the world will be able to say that it has rid itself of that hidden evil?“This mission will be accomplished by none but you, O Muslims … The ember of jihad against the Jews will continue to burn.“The struggle and the jihad will continue until the words of Allah come true.“Judgment day will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews … Tomorrow you Jews will see what will become of you — an eye for an eye, blood for blood, destruction for destruction.”Reinforcing his bloodthirsty message, the unseen crowd interjected with a chant of “Khaybar, Khaybar” — the full war cry being “Khaybar Khaybar Ya Yahud jaysh Muhammad saya’ud” (Khaybar, Khaybar O Jews, the army of Muhammad will return).

Khaybar was the scene of a 7th-century massacre of Jews in what is now Saudi Arabia.

The problem we face as Aus­tralians today is not just violent ­Islamic extremism, it is also non­violent extremism. There are authorities tasked with recognising and countering those who ­engage in violent extremism.

It is infinitely more difficult to recognise and counter nonviolent extremism, yet it is no less sinister, no less threatening, its potential to cause harm no less dire.

It is unconscionable at any time — yet how much more so at this time of heightened concern for our country’s security — that a public figure can brazenly and outrageously incite such hatred.

Wahwah’s poisonous rant ought to be condemned by all who care about protecting our democratic way of life.

His diatribe was not anti-Israel sentiment, as some supporters ­insist, but vile and crude Jew-­hatred reminiscent of last year’s anti-Israel rallies that descended into blatant anti-Semitism, complete with Nazi swastikas and placards evoking racist images that had nothing to do with the Middle East.

It could be argued that his rant constitutes racial vilification; that needs to be explored.

The issue is that our society comprises 200 cultures living overwhelmingly in peace in an ­environment where civility, res­pect and diversity are the norm; but we dare not take those values for granted. To do so is to put our way of life at risk.

Wahwah’s speech was deliv­ered in Arabic and a subtitled video released last week in the ­expectation that it would galvanise attention, such is the potential harm its message conveys. That didn’t happen.

It is inconceivable that some choose to defend and offer excu­ses for Hizb ut-Tahrir, which Wahwah represents.

All people of goodwill have an obligation to speak out on these ­issues. We are either opposed to giving platforms to hatred and ­bigotry or we are not. There is a stark choice to be made.

By now all of you would have heard at least a thousand times from our dhimmi media about the Twitter hashtag of #Iwillridewithyou. Every other minute the media dunces remind us of this campaign, supposedly to help assuage the fears of panicked Muslims who are evidently already packing their bags to ship out of Australia to avoid the daily lynchings, firebombings, and burning crescents by enraged whities.

At any moment millions of demonised Australians are supposed to launch an all-out assault on the poor beleaguered Muslim community. Evil Aussies will any second now unleash WWIII on all these innocent Muslims. At least that is how the leftist media narrative goes.

Thus all the mass hallucinations with the Twitter campaign. But as Chris Kenny says about it: “Nice thought. Except it was an empty response to an imaginary problem.”

IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT THEM! Muslim terrorist holds people hostage in cafe, entire world worries about imaginary “backlash” against Muslims. I’m sorry, I’m a little more concerned about the hostages. Screw the imaginary backlash and all its pedlars.Yes absolutely. Instead of the dopey #Iwillridewithyou[Muslims], I much rather prefer, #Iwillridewithyouhostages.

Jihadi Terrorist Siege in Sydney CBD 15 Dec 2014

Live: Hostages held in siege at cafe in Sydney's Martin PlaceMon 15 Dec 2014RELATED LINK: Live coverage: ABC News 24MAP: Sydney 2000A number of hostages have been taken in a siege underway in Sydney's CBD, at the Lindt Coffee shop in Martin Place.At least three people have been seen through the windows of a cafe in Martin Place with their hands raised, and the black jihadi 'shahada' flag has been shown at the window.

Life with a perfect stranger

"... Why would an educated Western woman want to travel to Syria, marry a man she has never met and live under sharia law in a mongrel state where healthcare is rudimentary and where women are sub­ordinated to and controlled by men?"

STEFANIE MARSH THE TIMES (& The Australian) DEC 04, 2014

IN a bedroom in Birmingham, Eng­land, a well-educated 15-year-old girl logs on to her computer and leaves another hopeful message for Omar Yilmaz: “You have beautiful eyes,” this one reads. “I just want to be with you.”

Why Abbas Will Not Condemn Terror Attacks

by Khaled Abu Toameh Gatestone Institute Nov 12, 2014

Secretary of State Kerry's "peace process" actually put Israelis and Palestinians on a new collision course.Not a single Palestinian Authority official has denounced the wave of terror attacks on Israel. They, too, are afraid of being condemned by their people for denouncing "heroic operations" such as ramming a car into a three-month old infant.Kerry and other Western leaders do not want to understand that Abbas is not authorized to make any concessions for peace with Israel.....

Mohammad Ali Baryalei: Australia's most senior member of Islamic State funnelled fighters onto the frontline of Syria, Iraq wars

A 7.30 investigation has uncovered Australia's most senior member of the Islamic State militant group, who authorities say has funnelled scores of Australian fighters onto the frontline of the wars in Syria and Iraq.

Bill Leak Cartoon ''THE AUSTRALIAN'' 5 Sept 2014

The peculiar case of liberals criticizing Israel

By MITCHELL BARD JERUSALEM POST 3 Sept 2014

... "the Jewish Left believes that Israel is all wrong and can do no right. There is no acknowledgment that Israel has a right to protect itself or that its geopolitical circumstance is unique. For these liberals, Hamas isn’t responsible for its actions; Israel is to blame. Most detractors don’t care about how their words are used; some knowingly make common cause with the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement as well as other anti-Semites who seek the destruction of Israel ....

"The fact is that Hamas intimidation is largely beside the point because the actions of Palestinians are beside the point: Most reporters in Gaza believe their job is to document violence directed by Israel at Palestinian civilians. That is the essence of the Israel story. In addition, reporters are under deadline and often at risk, and many don’t speak the language and have only the most tenuous grip on what is going on. They are dependent on Palestinian colleagues and fixers who either fear Hamas, support Hamas, or both. Reporters don’t need Hamas enforcers to shoo them away from facts that muddy the simple story they have been sent to tell.".........

"The world’s only Jewish country has done less harm than most countries on earth, and more good—and yet when people went looking for a country that would symbolize the sins of our new post-colonial, post-militaristic, post-ethnic dream-world, the country they chose was this one."

Matti Friedman's work as a reporter has taken him to Lebanon, Morocco, Egypt, Moscow, and Washington, DC, and to conflicts in Israel and the Caucasus. etc. He lives in Jerusalem.

The Media Intifada: Bad Math, Ugly Truths About New York Times In Israel-Hamas War

*Special Report: MUST READ AND KEEP AS REFERENCE!This article in Forbes Magazine by investigative journalist Richard Behar provides the most definitive details on the anti-Israel bias witnessed during the current Gaza conflict.

You Won’t Believe What the Son of Hamas Just Said on CNN! JULY 27, 2014

Cartoon by Spooner The Age﻿26 July 2014﻿

THANE ROSENBAUM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL(Repeated in THE AUSTRALIAN) JULY 25, 2014

Palestinian girls in Gaza City after an Israeli military strike. Picture: AFP Source: AFP

LET’S state the obvious: No one likes to see dead children. Well, that’s not completely true: Hamas does. It would prefer those children to be Jewish, but there is greater value to them if they are Palestinian. Outmatched by Israel’s military, Hamas is playing the long game of moral revulsion.... Read the full articlehere>>

Hamas wants ‘telegenically dead Palestinians’

Prime minister says Hamas seeks as many casualties as possible to be displayed by the world mediaBY STUART WINER July 20, 2014, Times of Israel

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu charged Sunday that Hamas was callously making use of Palestinian casualties for the sake of the visual impact in television images and called on the international community to intervene and demilitarize the Gaza Strip.In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Netanyahu accused Hamas of a cynical disregard for human life.“These people are the worst terrorists — genocidal terrorists,” he said. “They call for the destruction of Israel and they call for the killing of every Jew, wherever they can find them.”“They want to pile up as many civilian dead as they can,” he continued. “They use telegenically dead Palestinians for their cause. They want the more dead, the better.”